Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
M43 Alpha system I know this might be a major problem and all, but M43 Alpha system is not canon, never in the episode did they give a name to the system that contained Zeon and Ekos, it was one system, just unnamed. --TOSrules 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) * I believe the source of this, at least one of them, is the Star Trek Concordance. There also appears to be several search results for the term on Google. --Alan del Beccio 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) **TOSrules is correct. Not even the Blish adaptation (based on the final scripts) used this designation. I think it was just some speculation that crept in and stayed. The Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't have it as an entry (but does mention it with Ekos), nor does Startrek.com. In short, the places one would expect to find it don't have it. It should be deleted or renamed to "unknown system" (although I'm not sure the value of that.) Aholland 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC) **'Delete' but by creating an article such as Unnamed star systems, we can implement this system. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' if not canon, but I would advise against an "unnamed systems" page. These "unnamed X" list articles make sense if there was one or more "X" seen/referenced but not named, for example in the case of characters, starships, items etc. With "unnamed star systems", there isn't really much more info than what planets are a part of it, and in the few cases where there even is more than one planet in a system, that could simply be mentioned on the articles about the planets. -- Cid Highwind 14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Well on my site it is called the Zeta Eta Star System. Originally I called it the ZE star system, standing for Zeon and Ekos, but that was a bit lame, so I decided to go with the Roman letters Zeta Eta. One could make an argument that this system having 2 planes, that we know which is inner and which is outer should have it's own system. Anyways, that is how it is done on my site. --TOSrules 03:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC) FlashTrek * No canon content, delete. -- Renegade54 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC) * Move or merge into an appropriate page about such things. It's a real game, I found that much out. Looks promisinghttp://www.2flashgames.com/f/f-830.htm. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC) * Move/'merge' somewhere. We can have articles for games, but I think those are only for games officially licensed by Paramount. --From Andoria with Love 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Amazon Standardized Inventory Number Not sure I see how this applies to anything --Alan del Beccio 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC) *Agreed. Delete that and also ASIN. I don't think we need to make it even easier for Amazon to get rich quick... ;) -- Cid Highwind *'Delete' Not Trek related. Aholland 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) **Follow-up: Although Robert Treat has, I think, genuinely good motives, this site is neither a catalog nor a clearinghouse for products. I still vote to Delete. Aholland 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC) *I added it because I thought it would help fans order Trek products from Amazon.com. I figured you could wiki-link the "ISBN"s Amazon has listed for TOS episodes and MA would earn the sales commission described and it would help support the site. Some Trek Audio CDs are also marketed under ASINs and are not always linked to other editions at Amazon. One example is The Return by the Reeves-Shatner team. The Audio CD edition seems to be listed twice at Amazon.co.uk, because you can find it in their Popular Music section using the ASIN I have listed, and if you drag the catalog number (the actual ISBN) they have shown into the search rectangle you'll find the same title in the books section! Problem is, the other editions only have links to the edition shown in Books, which had no used copies available last time I checked, and people might not realize they would be able to find used copies available in Pop-Music. And yes, I have written to Amazon about this. *At Amazon's U.S. site they also have Box Set editions of Trek books in the Music section. Some of them are linked to other editions (such as Crossover, Federation by the Reeves-Stevens, and The Ashes of Eden) while others don't. The visually impared can find a Braille edition of The Devil's Heart by searching for the ASIN I have listed for that title--Robert Treat 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC). *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Wales No Trek references... the articles even says so! -- Renegade54 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' Not Trek related. Aholland 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) * Hmm, guess I asked for this one. Delete --Alan del Beccio 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) * Delete. --From Andoria with Love 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 11:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Vulcan Defense Forces * Fabricated from the line "Vulcan defense vessels are also responding... the Romulan force is retreating toward the Neutral Zone..." --Alan del Beccio 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC) * Delete - Probably an honest mistake, though. Aholland 03:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Federation starship prototype names ;USS Istanbul * This entry is speculation without any identified basis, not even a secondary production art or reference work citation. The article even acknowledges this itself. Aholland 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ;USS Zodiac, USS Wells, USS Surak, USS Wambundu, USS Steamrunner, USS Sovereign, USS Soyuz, USS Sequoia, USS Saber, USS Rigel, USS Renaissance, USS Olympic, USS Norway, USS Niagara, USS New Orleans, USS Nebula, USS Miranda, USS Merced, USS Mediterranean, USS Hokule'a; USS Deneva, USS Daedalus, USS Chimera, USS Cheyenne, USS Apollo, USS Andromeda, * As it is stated in a few of these articles: "we can infer that it existed based on Federation's practice of naming a ships class after the prototype." Not the most eloquent wording, but the naming from what we've seen it is an accurate observation, i.e. the USS Excelsior, USS Galaxy, etc. So to save some time on this long standing debate, let's do this in one fell swoop. --Alan del Beccio 04:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *I don't think I can vote on the single article I suggested for deletion, but as to any other article on a Starship that does not have a single resource of any sort to back it up other than "it seems reasonable to assume" I vote to Delete. After all, if common practice observed in Trek can be used as the sole basis for speculative articles we open the doors to all kinds of fanon; something I believe this site desires to avoid. Aholland 05:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' all. The line must be drawn '''here'! This far! No further!'' --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) :*'NOTE': For the record, my vote was a joke, so don't take it seriously. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' all of the Starfleet ships (including Istanbul). It has been shown in several episodes that it is Federation practice to name a class after the prototype ship (at least by the 2240s). If we are meant to be complete then articles should be made for these classes' prototypes, which are inferred from any source mentioning or showing the class name.--Tim Thomason 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' USS Wambundu, USS Daedalus and any articles with legitimate information that's verifiable, delete the others. They don't tell us anything about the ship and, for instance, I highly doubt they'd have a USS Olympic as opposed to a USS Olympus for the Olympic class. The fact is they don't really tell us anything of value if they just make conjectures - even if it is a tradition, we don't have to have articles on them just because it's "normally" done, in addition to cases like the Olympic class. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' Istanbul since the class was (apparently) never mentioned in onscreen material we have access to. Keep the rest (perhaps merging/'renaming' the Olympic/Olympus uncertainty). It is pretty straight-forward how Federation starship classes are named. I think our energies would be better spent finding other non-canon topics to weed out rather than these starships, all of which, besides Istanbul, have their class havng been mentioned either in dialogue or on accessible background art such as computer displays/animations/printouts. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 05:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' per Vedek Dukat. However, move USS Olympic if we keep it. Makon 05:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC) **''Presumably your intention is to duplicate Dukat's vote of keeping all the verifiable ones, meaning only delete exceptions (so far, to my knowledge, including Istanbul and the Olymp(ic)us). Please specify if any intention was different. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ***I apologise for the confusion. My stance is that we should delete any starships whose existence is not known. Inferences from tradition don't necessitate an article. The Olympic is a perfect example -- although, in response to Cid Highwind's comment below, Olympic would be the adjective formed from the noun Olympus (or Olympia?) -- of a case where we don't know what the prototype was called, if it existed. What do we gain from these pages? I click on one of them, am presented with "This was probably the prototype for the eponymous starship class, although it was never mentioned or seen anywhere and its existence isn't certain" and I promptly feel cheated, because I wasted my time in visiting that page, which tells me nothing I didn't know already. Makon 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'Rename' USS Olympus and delete the Istanbul per Captainmike, but keep the rest. Tim convinced me over IRC that the Olympus issue isn't enough to delete them over, as we can correct errors as we encounter them. I still think we had this conversation before though. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *After a number of edit conflicts, delete Istanbul, keep the rest. Geez! --From Andoria with Love 06:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC) * I'm not voting on this issue either way, but have we confirmed all the other ships as having their class names appear on screen? I think a closer look needs to be made at some of those listed because I'm not sure I see that the USS Andromeda/Andromeda class was, both the USS Drake and USS Prokofiev were referred to in dialog, and did not appear in any displays/diagrams. -Alan del Beccio 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *What's that Olympic/Olympus discussion about? Names ending in "-ic" seem to be valid ship names in real-life (Titanic, Britannic, Majestic, ...). How someone can infer the name "Olympus" from an "Olympic" class I don't really understand - and thus disagree with a page move, should the article continue to exist. Regarding the original suggestion, I agree that all articles about ships that haven't been named on-screen should be removed. However, since a) naming ships after the class seems to be common practice and b) we can't say anything special about a ship we haven't heard of anyway... Wouldn't it be a good compromise to turn all those ship names into redirects to the class articles and add a note that "a ship with that name might exist as the class prototype" to those articles? -- Cid Highwind 13:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC) **As the guy who first suggested deletion of the USS Istanbul, I would support a redirect with a note as suggested by Cid in lieu of deletion. Aholland 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *I go with the "divided" delete/'keep' vote like Captainmike and Vedek Dukat, dependent on if the the class was mentioned onscreen (keep then) or not (delete then). Also delete the Klingon prototype ships as we do not know their policy. But we DO know the UFP policy, so IMO it would be just wrong to delete USS Sovereign or USS Nebula for instance. Kennelly 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC) **Actually, we don't really know about this "UFP policy". Tell me, of how many (and which) ship classes do we know both the class name and about the existance of a prototype vessel of the same name from onscreen sources? -- Cid Highwind 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *I agree that the Klingon ones should be deleted, since there is no canon evidence that the Klingon ships are named after the prototype, however, there is suffcient canon evidence that on Federation starships, the class is named after the prototype of the class. Some canon examples are: - The U.S.S. Excelsior (NX-2000) - The U.S.S. Galaxy (NX-70637) - The U.S.S. Prometheus (NX-59650/NX-74913) - The ''U.S.S. Defiant (NX-74205) - The U.S.S. Constitution (NX-1700) - The U.S.S. Nova (NX-73515) - The U.S.S. Oberth (NX-602) - The U.S.S. Yellowstone (NX-74751) - The U.S.S. Whorfin (NX-1024) - The U.S.S. Constellation (NX-1974) I think it is right to keep the articles of the Federation prototypes that we haven't seen, because of the canon evidence right in front fo us. I vote NO on deletion for the articles of the Federeation ships. Ensign q 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *Just to state the obvious (something I excel at), no one has yet provided a resource for Cid stating the practice that Starfleet always, without fail, in all situations and at all times, has a ship named after a class. A number of examples increases probability, but we're supposed to deal with valid resources here, not the odds. Aholland 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'!--MatthewFenton 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC) *OK, here's a challenge. Take the "Canon policy" (even take the old one if you like) and tell me how, according to that policy, an article about a starship that hasn't been named directly, but whose name is only derived from a class name and the assumption that "this is what the UFP always does", should stay. If you can't, we don't even need to have this vote - if this is not from a valid resource, it needs to go. If you can, we can still talk about the fact that these pages basically contain no information besides the fact that "this probably is the prototype of the X class" - in that case, why don't we simply redirect to the class article anyway? -- Cid Highwind 13:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC) *Additionally, from that list above you can already remove the Constitution, the Whorfin (according to background information on their article), the Oberth and even the Galaxy (no NX-prefix according to their article). I'm not saying it is wrong, but it is hardly "hard evidence" either. -- Cid Highwind 13:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC) **I say we merge and redirect the works of these to prototype, being as they are already listed there it won't take much work. Jaf 13:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf *Oh, fine fine, delete them all. "This line must be drawn here! This far! No farther!" (no joking this time) --From Andoria with Love 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Klingon starship prototype names ;IKS B'rel, IKS K't'inga, IKS K'vort * I'm pulling these from the other entries as they really fall under a whole different discussion, and as I previously stated above, "there is no indication that Klingons name the classes after the first ship commissioned. (see: talk:Negh'Var class)" --Alan del Beccio 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC) * Ah, sure, go ahead and delete them, if we're sure the Klingon practice of naming a ship's class after the prototype was never revealed. --From Andoria with Love 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' as the practice with the Klingons is as speculative as the practice within Starfleet. Aholland 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Adult versions of child characters ;Naomi Wildman (adult) : We've been down this road before, this was previously deleted. Unless we really have an entire alternate history of a character's entire lifetime in an alternate timeline or universe, there really isn't much reason to include a brief alternate-future cameo as a part of the character's main article. Seeing as the adult Naomi had only a few minutes of screentime, there's nothing that can't be reconciled as part of her own article. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *I am not sure I understand the problem. When I click on the link up above I get a regular Naomi Wildman article with a reasonable subsection on her as an adult. Seems okay to me. Am I missing something? Aholland 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) **The article was converted to a redirect. I'm recommending deletion of the redirect. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *I agree that the redirect should be deleted as there are no links now and I don't think any pages should link to it in the future.--Tim Thomason 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *Ah! I agree, then. Delete.Aholland 21:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *Whoops! I guess I shoulda checked out the Vfd before deleting the redirect. Anyways, the redirect had previously been deleted (as it was just downright unnecessary), so it qualified as an immediate deletion. --From Andoria with Love 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC) **Yeah, i think that i meant to place it on the immed. deletion page, but i didn't realize it was here til Aholland pointed it out. Good riddance, though! :) -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Uss Sovereign Entry ;USS Sovereign *I would like the entry on the uss Sovereign to be deleted as most of the information caomes from books, and as i received a meesage from you stating: " the books arent considered canon, so your entries were deleted" -- (unsigned) *The Sovereign entry is up for deletion on the grounds that it was explicitly mentioned, even though canon has shown it exists because a class is named after a prototype. I voted to keep in that vote, and that stands for this one as well. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ** The Sovereign article was getting verbose in listing non-canon data, you were right to suggest its removal. Non-canon data should be limited to links to where the non-canon mentions of the USS Sovereign are, the names of each novels and the like. You are correct that non-canon data shouldn't be added to any main articles. Feel free to peruse our games, novels, comics and reference works articles to see how non-canon data is disposed of here at MA, in the appended references lists. Also, check on how to sign talk page comments with tildes (type ~~~~ to sign) -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) * Do we have to vote on this twice? --Alan del Beccio 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ** I don't really think so.. although if this was an unregistered user, he wouldn't have been allowed to vote in the discussion above, but his nomination here might count as a vote? confusing. ** I just wanted to make it clear to whoever posted this that the Sovereign is, as i stated in the other vote, in my opinion, canonically established. There's a difference between removing misplaced non-canon definitions (i.e. "Kirk was reanimated by the Borg...") with links to non-canon sources (i.e. "This story was continued in "The Return"...") in main articles. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 00:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC) **Unless there is some kind of resource stating there actually is a USS Sovereign - dialogue, a graphic, sign language, anything - the entry should be deleted as pure speculation. Aholland 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) *Why are we voting on this article in two different places...? --From Andoria with Love 11:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC) **I just stated above that the original vote is the one that stands. This seems to be a discussion. Please make sure you vote in the other vote (and no more votes here plz) ----